Why Canada and the U.S. Should Merge, Eh?

It's past time for the two countries to eliminate their border

By

Diane Francis

Dec. 6, 2013 5:51 p.m. ET

When Americans think about Canada—and that doesn't happen often—they usually think of us as the nice, predictable guy next door who never plays his stereo too loud. Even
Rob Ford,
Toronto's ranting, crack-smoking mayor, has barely dented our squeaky-clean image.

But Americans shouldn't just think more about Canada. They should consider building on the two countries' free-trade deal and forming a more perfect North American union. It is past time for the U.S. and Canada to eliminate their border—either by creating a customs and monetary union or, more radically, by merging outright into a single nation-state or a European Union-style partnership.

Such a merger makes perfect sense. No two countries on Earth are as socially and economically integrated as the U.S. and Canada. They share geography, values and a gigantic border. Their populations study, travel and do business together and intermarry in great numbers. If they were corporations (or European states), they would have merged a long time ago. And each has what the other needs: The U.S. has capital, manpower, technology and the world's strongest military; Canada has vast reserves of undeveloped resources.

ENLARGE

Alex Nabaum

Of course, even the most mild-mannered Canadian may sputter at the prospect of being swallowed up by the U.S., and Americans may wonder about the wisdom of absorbing their huge neighbor. But it needn't be so radical. Nobody is proposing that Canada become the 51st state.

Like modern businesses, modern nations must constantly recalibrate their economic and political models. The smartest people in a room prevail until a smarter group comes along. And unless winners adapt, they eventually lose out, in economic and political life as in nature. Today's U.S. or Canada could become tomorrow's Portugal or Greece. In the competitive and interconnected world of the 21st century, countries that stand still will be left behind.

The two North American neighbors increasingly find themselves staring down the barrel of state capitalism, as practiced above all by China, whose state-owned enterprises and sovereign-wealth funds have made a concerted effort to capture markets and resources. In October, the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook database forecast that by 2018, China's economy will be bigger than that of the U.S.—and Asian economies will be bigger than those of the U.S., Canada, Germany, Britain, Italy, France and Russia combined.

If Canada and the U.S. were to join forces, the tables might well be turned. The North American neighbors would become an even more formidable superpower, with an economy larger than the European Union's and a land mass bigger than South America's. The new union would top the world in energy, minerals, water, arable land and technology, and all of it would be protected by the U.S. military. Size matters.

Canadians have traditionally bristled at the thought of falling under the sway of the U.S., but without a deeper cross-border partnership, we face some grim existential challenges. With its small, aging population and relatively small economy, Canada lacks the resources to develop and defend its gigantic piece of real estate. Through a series of aggressive buyout attempts and transactions, China has targeted Canada's resources and empty landmass. In 2007, Russia used a small submarine to symbolically plant its flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole and underscore its claim to a large swath of the resource-rich Arctic, and Russian President
Vladimir Putin
has been pushing the U.N. to affirm his claims to the region.

The U.S. faces serious challenges of its own. It must create millions of jobs for its relatively young population, and even as its political system grows more sclerotic, it must compete for markets, resources and Arctic access with the aggressive practitioners of state capitalism.

Truth be told, the merger of the U.S. and Canada is already well under way. As many as one in 10 Canadians (more than 3 million people) live full- or part-time in the U.S., and an estimated 1 million Americans live in Canada. As of 2010, U.S. enterprises controlled about 10% of Canada's assets, 17% of its revenues and 13% of its corporate profits, according to Statistics Canada. Canadians bought more goods and services from Americans than did the 340 million people living in the European Union—a population 10 times as large.

A still deeper integration could drive major economic growth. Canada's hinterland is largely without infrastructure or development, even though it contains enormous untapped natural resources. Political disputes have also stranded some of the world's most promising hydroelectric and tidal power prospects in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

Despite the powerful logic of a U.S.-Canada merger, the obstacles remain daunting. Both countries are divided politically and heavily regionalized. To execute so audacious a move would require a level of statesmanship now lacking in both countries.

But remember, the Europeans pulled off something far more dramatic, uniting populations that shared no language and had slaughtered one another for centuries. Other recent examples of deeper integration include the Eastern Caribbean Economic and Monetary Union and the Economic Community of West African States. They all did it by opening their borders to trade and travel—while at the same time leaving governments intact.

Opinion surveys about an outright merger are scant, but as far back as 1964, a poll showed support from 49% of Canadians. In 2007, the World Values Survey Association, a research network of thousands of social scientists, found that about 77% of Americans and 41% of Canadians said they would opt for political union if it meant a better quality of life. In 2011, another poll by Harris/Decima showed that 65% of Canadians backed greater integration with the U.S. and supported a plan to eliminate the border by blending U.S. and Canadian customs, immigration, security and law enforcement efforts.

Those who oppose such a merger are on the wrong side of history. When the North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1987, the U.S. and Canada (along with Mexico) began a mutually beneficial process of integration that now needs strengthening. Untended, the border has become clogged, damaging trade and tourism. And the wolves are at the door. Just this year China, Inc. picked off a large Canadian oil company and a large American food processor and exporter, without promising either country any reciprocal buyout privileges in China.

Serious discussion of a merger should be a top priority for both the U.S. and Canada. The continental neighbors need one another more now than ever before, and the status quo grows less viable by the day.

—Ms. Francis, a dual Canadian-American citizen, is the author of "Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country," published by HarperCollins.

*Better Merger Direction: Canada CONSOLIDATES the USA into the UK Commonwealth (as, somewhat, originally planned...a long time ago...LOL)

It actually could work out in the TRADITIONAL DIRECTION - [the] 'Monarchy A' consolidates lands in the 'New World' way. Canada can consolidate the United States of America into '3 or more' new Canadian provinces (i.e., new UK Commonwealth Territorial States).

***Also, If there are any Canadians, who are interested in a Canada consolidation of the USA, then LET ME KNOW. I can, then, send information, and start the opprobrium of the USA, while in the US. I support Canadian Territorial Dominion over the USA, of course with the Queen of England's (a.k.a. Defender of the Faith [???in Jesus Christ???]) approval. :) :) :)

As a Gentile Christian, who by overarching belief system supports Absolute Monarchical Theocracy (via Jesus Christ - Lord God Almighty), I say MERGE from Canada's direction. In other words, Canada should CONSOLIDATE the USA into '3 or more' new Canadian Provinces (i.e., UK Commonwealth Territorial States).

Besides, the Queen of England (a.k.a. Queen of Canada) is considered the 'Defender of the Faith [???in Jesus Christ???].' Autocracies and Monarchies are more successful at acquiring/consolidating new lands.

*Better Merger Direction: Canada CONSOLIDATES the USA into the UK Commonwealth (as, somewhat, originally planned...a long time ago...LOL)

It actually could work out in the TRADITIONAL DIRECTION - Monarchy A consolidates lands in the 'New World' way. Since, I like the Queen of England (a.k.a. Queen of Canada)...maybe Canada can consolidate the United States of America into '3 or more' new Canadian provinces (i.e., new UK Commonwealth Territorial States).

I support Canadian Territorial Dominion over the USA, of course with the Queen of England's (a.k.a. Defender of the Faith [???in Jesus Christ???]) approval. :) :) :)

GOT A MORE PLAUSIBLE SCENARIO? Surreptitiously (i.e, another false flag operation), military ground, sea & air forces controlled by the United States, but otherwise stripped of all identifying insignia's except for the Canadian Maple Leaf, in coordination attack Seattle, Detroit and Buffalo, NY..In turn a national emergency is declared by President Johnson, who then of course has no other option but to invade, occupy and in due course eventually secure a binding United Nations resolution authorizing the annexation by the US of all Canadian provinces and/or contiguous territories. I mean, (like this article notes) yeah, we got weapons, but also unsustainable debts, right? And in turn (again, as noted) they got a balanced budget, and untapped natural resources (e.g., land, water, minerals, timber, etc.) So from Canada's perspective what's their incentive for this deal, a merger with a country many Canadians seemingly regard with contempt, eh?

As an American, I would say merge away, but only under these conditions:

1. That the new nation keep the first amendment. Canadians have been to eager to limit speech and restricts the rights even of churches.

2. That the new nation keep the H.M. the Queen and her successors as head of state. Combining the office of head of state and head of government hasn't worked very well for us. Let's split them apart, and since the number of Bushes, Gores, and Clintons on ballots lately shows that we like having a family in power, let's get our monarchy from the source and make up with King George's heirs.

3. That the new nation have provinces of roughly equal population, so Wyoming and Prince Edward Island don't get more representation than New York and Ontario.

4. That the heard of government be a prime minister supported by a majority of the lower house.

5. That the upper house exist as a "revising chamber" and judge of appointees to all non-political offices, and that it's members be chosen for the same term as supreme court justices by the legislatures of the provinces.

5. That only the crown, and not any state, tribe, or other entity, be sovereign, and that the powers of those other governments be delegated by the national government.

6. That no gerrymandering, paid lobbying, or political contributions of more than $1000 be tolerated at any level of government.

7. That that the legal fiction of "corporation" be replaced with the concept of "limited liability company," that limited liability companies enjoy none of the protections of citizens, and that limited liability companies be granted the protections and immunities granted to persons on the basis of conscientious objection if and only if a majority of their stockholders affirm that they have a personal conscientious objection to be protected.

8. That the new national anthem be in a range that can be actually sung by the majority of those present at a baseball or hockey game, and that performance of the anthem by a vocal soloist of any kind in any context be prohibited by law.

Merge in a country in decline, with the highest gun murders per capita - and proud of it - with bigot religious fanatics, where corruption (through lobbies and unlimited election support) is the law, where the education is the most expensive with so poor results.

Get caught in this ridiculous healthcare system.

Merge with a country with a government that cannot govern, and allows shutdowns.

I prefer to be on the wrong side of history as on the wrong side of the border.

An even better idea, one that would more fully achieve these objectives, would be to add UK, Australia, & New Zealand to Canada in a form of EU with the USA. Population and economy of the new (English Speaking Union?) would be 50% almost larger than the current USA. Land area and resources would approximately triple to be larger than even the old Soviet Union. The new areas are generally more stable socially than the US with fewer social problems, all are strong democracies. This New Union could give needed stability to the increasingly unstable "worldleader." No, US would not again be the world's sole superpower, offering leaders like the presidential candidates of the last 4 elections, who would trust that kind of restoration, nor would the New Union . By 2025 we could be one of 3, theothers being China and India. The 3 would be so powerful no upstart like Iran or Russia could hope tochallenge their hegemony and the peace and stability it could bring. Europe, Japan, Spanish America, Russia,Turkey, and Brazil would nonetheless be free to pursue their independent destinies which would benefit global cultural diversity and stability. This national triumvirate might insure a long spell of global stability more or less as did Britain, France, Germany and the US from 1875 until 1914. No reason to think it might end in war. 3 power stability would give us 50 years for science and technology toimprove the human condition to try to deal rationally and effectively with problems like environmental degradation. Essentially, this is a Churchillian vision for the future minus imperial British trappings, and outdated, nationalist customs. English would become the worlds second language thru which all educated people could communicate, and an official language of 2 of the 3 great powers, as well as much of Africa. World peaceand progress under the language of Shakespeare! Churchill would have liked it, and so would have Lincoln, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and George Washington. James Driscoll, Ph.D., Las Vegas

"The notion that U.S.-born citizens would tolerate living in a society in which they have fewer government-given rights than their Canadian-born neighbors is just one of the many eyebrow-raising assumptions contained in Diane Francis's book," Kay observed.

____________

Frank,

Our rights are not "government given". They are given to us by our Creator per our Constitution and it needs to stay that way.

What the government giveth, it can and will taketh away. Our Founders understood that which is precisely why it is a most important distinction.

"In the competitive and interconnected world of the 21st century, countries that stand still will be left behind."

For Ms. Francis benefit, I feel compelled to point out that if the US had decided to "stand still" in 2008, by electing the unfortunately nominated John McCain, the country would have been far better off at this point . There is no reason to believe that recovery from the "Great Recession" would have been anything but normal, Obamacare would have continued to be a progressive pipe dream instead of a national nightmare, and such ill-begottne programs as Fast and Furious and Fed backing of Solyndra and other failed "green" companies would have been avoided, since their financiers gave no money to Mr. McCain. One should always bear in mind that when advocating "movement", it is at least as important to wisely choose direction of movement as it is to make the decision to move at all. At this point it is not obvious that the voters or either country are likely to make such a choice, either separately or together.

An eminently good idea. Another item "owned" by Canada that the US will need in mega-volumes is water. It is my understanding that Canada possesses something in the neighborhood of 50% to 70% (or more) of the world's fresh water. And, together, the two countries would carry a bit more clout with their less peacefully disposed neighbors, Russia and China.

This would be the worst thing that could ever happen to Canadians, who would wake up the next morning without any health insurance, and suddenly start finding themselves crammed into maximum security prisons for many things that they were previously allowed to do.

Actually, I think it might be very good if the US joins Canada. We would combine the many states into larger, more equitable provinces, we would stop all military adventures, people could get reasonable health care, no more food stamps, education would improve, corruption would go down and everybody could enjoy a maple dip do-nut. Thanksgiving would be more of a family tradition rather than a shopping tradition and you could drop the US dollar that has been in floe to a free fall for the last 20 years...but all on one condition...you expel Bernanke first.Think about boys and girls down south, life would improve.

A more porous and free boarder is one thing, but merger? No way. Our Canadian tax system is simpler and much more thoughtful. Our political system functions more smoothly. We do not do shut downs. Would America like our national vale added tax? Would Canadians want American death/estate taxes? What about health care? How about our very sensible gun laws? You can own a gun here, but you have to take a safety course, pass a test and background check. Your spouse has to agree you are ok to have a gun. Why on earth would we want to have US social security when our Canada pension plan is actuarily sound and has actual assets in it? A dollar of our own that floats freely is what is best for us as Canadians.It keeps our government and central bank honest. I have lived in the US, been educated there and have business on both sides of the boarder. I am a fan of the US, but no way do I want to merge thank you very much.

You might want to ask Canadians if they would want to join. I think they are doing just fine as it is. (America basically protects them, they benefited from NAFTA years ago due to their slightly cheaper currency--the U.S. auto makers moved many production plants just across the border into Canada for instance, their political system contains far less corruption and corporate money than ours does, and they are free to govern their own affairs.)

On top of it all, their outlook is one that feels part of 3 different cultures (the U.S., U.K., and France). And they actually know that a world outside the North American continent exists.

It would seem to be that they are getting all of the benefits of being part of America without any of the costs. Why would they want to change that?

What a silly idea. The author concedes that the 2 governmental systems would stay in place; they already have near-total free trade, and their currencies trade freely, float and thus form an equilibrium. What's left to merge? The two countries have sharply different cultures. On the plus side, the U.S. has amazing freedoms and pluralism while Canada has a reasonably solid social cohesion. On the downside the U.S. is in political decline and Canada's same social cohesion causes social dependency. I wouldn't mind if the US also balanced its budget as does Canada -- a proposal that sends liberals south of the border into hysterics -- but the Canadians definitely would mind importing our violent culture. The sheering forces are simply too great, and in that light how anyone can propose a currency union that would only spread tensions and risk is beyond me.

As a Gentile Christian, who by overarching belief system supports Absolute Monarchical Theocracy (via Jesus Christ - Lord God Almighty), I say MERGE from Canada's direction. In other words, Canada should CONSOLIDATE the USA into '3 or more' new Canadian Provinces (i.e., UK Commonwealth Territorial States).

Besides, the Queen of England (a.k.a. Queen of Canada) is considered the "Defender of the Faith [???in Jesus Christ???]." Autocracies and Monarchies are more successful at acquiring/consolidating new lands.

When I say our founders found your founders views abhorrent I mean it literally. We were founded in part by by United Empire Loyalists whom you call Tories, who left or were driven out after your revolt .

Agreed. Actually wrote an earlier commentary which shares much of what you have written above. did include Ireland intot he mix...a celtic tiger so to speak...Not sure there would be 3 super powers by 2025...India has many issues on its vested interest driven byzantyne governance structures...which are not catering to meet its vast potential...the level of bureacracy and its gross inefficiency is less than helpful. China however is already seing a contraction in its labour force by several millions last year and expected to accelerate...a diminishing workforce coupled with increased dependency from the aged is unlikely to make for a super power candidate in the long term...That it hasn't peaked is certainly the case but that trajectory has all the ingredients of its own decline and unlikely to be arrested. So the Anglosphere scenario is likely to keep the mantle of ensuring the low cost sea traffic regime that the international community has benefitted from to date. And Yes another 50 + years of innovation wealth creation and poverty reduction would be welcome as populations peak and stabilize in some cases contracting...A potentially rosy future ahead...provided some nutters are kept in check!!!

Unfortunately there s a flaw in your concept James. The people in the US do not speak english but some corrupted version with accents that are intelligible...go in the back streets of any large US city and you will not be able to understand the language. At best it can be described as pidgin english

Mr. Bradish, unfortunately, you are quite correct. I'm an American, and today spoke about 40 times to Brits via the Ministry of Defense (MOD) Operators in London, who all had quite impressive and clearly spoken English. It is "the Queen's English", I concede. I would point out to you that the difficulty in understanding the millions (upon millions) of subhuman animal gang members living in U.S. decrepit inner cities will prove to be the LEAST variable of concern when the USD crashes.

So Canadians find right to free speech, right to arms, right against troops being quartered in one's home, right against unreasonable search and seizure, right against being forced to act as a witness against oneself, right to a fair trial, etc...abhorrent? Also, what do you mean by duty? Americans very much believe in duty as well.

In Canada our politicians are definately not of special virtue but the ability of individual MPs to just add willy nilly items to a money bill is almost impossible. If a government loses a vote on a money bill there will be an immediate election. The very fact that we ended the trusts special status (because it was draining too much revenue and imperilling the fiscal situationand distorting the economy) provesour political class can take difficult and unpopular decisions when they are the right thing to do. Which again hilights my thesis of more thoughtful taxation. Another example of this is our old age security program where the government has changed the retirement age to 67 from 65 in about 20 years from now. They did this because when it was set up your average 65 year old could expect to live until 69. Now it is 78. The program needed changing and it was done and this was risky for the politicians of today and will benefit the country tomorrow. It is called management in the private sector and we have some good management in Ottawa. It has come from all of the main political parties I might add. Another reason not to merge.

Our tax system is simpler(not necessarily cheaper). Take capital gains tax. We do not distinguish between short term and long term and foreign and domestic gains. Our system looks at all capital gains as the same no matter where you earn it. Way easier record keeping for Canadians. Simpler. We also do not have the horse tarding of special interests the way you do around budgets. As a result we do not wind up with tax breaks for maufacturers of arrows and bows added to money bills at the last minute like you do. More thoughtful. Our tax system is appropriate for the size of our government and we are (at least federally) paying for government as we go unlike the US which has decieded to simply borrow from the future to pay for things. This is not fair to those who will follow us and another reason not to merge.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.